Fact and fiction in the bible
- Thread starter Xylene
- Start date
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
Virtually all of it is fiction.
*************Xylene said:
M*W: All fiction, poetry and allegory.
10% fact
90% fiction
So say'th the prophet Spidergoat.
90% fiction
So say'th the prophet Spidergoat.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
In answer to the OP(Opening Post).
Who knows?
Nobody here I would guess.
I believe it is almost 100%, but I cannot give you a fossil to prove it.
Who knows?
Nobody here I would guess.
I believe it is almost 100%, but I cannot give you a fossil to prove it.
The finish.....amen......is 100% accurate. I personally will go out on a limb, shove my atheistic tendencies aside and personally state that this is fact.
7 day creation is wrong for a start, so I imagine right away that's less than 99.9999% already, and we haven't even started with the even more outrageous claims yet...
But if you wish to call all provable falseness in the bible mere stories that shouldn't be taken literally then of course the bible is not correct as it is fiction. Although if you are brain washed and deluded enough to claim this book near 100% fact, then I feel for you... even though you are blissfully happy.
But if you wish to call all provable falseness in the bible mere stories that shouldn't be taken literally then of course the bible is not correct as it is fiction. Although if you are brain washed and deluded enough to claim this book near 100% fact, then I feel for you... even though you are blissfully happy.
I guess this depends on what you mean by fact. If you're talking about its historical authenticity, then the answer to your question depends on which books of the Bible you're talking about.
Gensis, for the most part, seems to be mythical in nature, and cannot be considered as a reliable historical document.
Exodus, though seeming less mythical in construct, is nevertheless neither confirmed nor denied by archaeological or textual evidence. It also is not considered an accepted source of historicity.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not written as historical pieces, or narratives of any kind. They are documents that set forth both the Levitical Laws and the Deuteronomical Laws of the Hebrews.
Since the Exodus out of Egypt has very little backing archaeologically, the book of Numbers also warrants little historical merit as it concerns the years that the Hebrews lived in the desert before moving into the Levant.
The Book of Joshus is a highly controversial text, and is both supported and opposed by archaeological evidence, depending on the part of the text you are talking about. Due to this controversy, this book is not considered to be a very reliable history.
The first two books of the four books of Kings likewise do not have supportive evidence, physically or textually (except for a very minor post-contemporary text which refers to a "kingdom of David."), and so are not considered as reliable.
The final two books of Kings, however, DO have very much textual and archaeological support, and are considered to be good sources of the ancient history of the Levant and parts of the Near East.
Likewise can be said of the book of Daniel, though not entirely accurate in some areas.
The Old Testament portion of the Bible consists very much of Wisdom Literature, Songs, Hymns and Poetry and Prophetic Literature. We cannot place historical values to these books as they were not written as histories, and never intended to be read as such. If anything, these books merely help us to understand the ancient culture of the Hebrews. In this sense, they might be considered "factual."
Concerning those books that I have not mentioned that do purport to histories, it is likely that they are also accepted sources for ancient Near Eastern histories, as it has been a clear trend that the further back in time you go, the less accurate the histories. Since the books I have not mentioned come later than the Pentateuch and Kings, etc.. they are hence more reliable sources, and an abundance of extra-biblical evidence (both physical and textual) support them. Keep in mind, however, that since histories are always written with bias, the stories told in these other books aer not always necessarily fully accurate, though the major events themselves are confirmed to have taken place.
The New Testament is another story altogether, and I don't believe I am yet qualified to make a proper statement concerning its historical authenticity.
The Bible, therefore, is very much a blend between fact and fiction, and actually, intentionally so. However, not as a means of controlling the masses, as some would suggest, but rather as a means of conveying spiritual concepts and ideologies. The historical "factual-ness" of the Bible actually has little impact on the heart of the religious ideals that come from it.
Gensis, for the most part, seems to be mythical in nature, and cannot be considered as a reliable historical document.
Exodus, though seeming less mythical in construct, is nevertheless neither confirmed nor denied by archaeological or textual evidence. It also is not considered an accepted source of historicity.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not written as historical pieces, or narratives of any kind. They are documents that set forth both the Levitical Laws and the Deuteronomical Laws of the Hebrews.
Since the Exodus out of Egypt has very little backing archaeologically, the book of Numbers also warrants little historical merit as it concerns the years that the Hebrews lived in the desert before moving into the Levant.
The Book of Joshus is a highly controversial text, and is both supported and opposed by archaeological evidence, depending on the part of the text you are talking about. Due to this controversy, this book is not considered to be a very reliable history.
The first two books of the four books of Kings likewise do not have supportive evidence, physically or textually (except for a very minor post-contemporary text which refers to a "kingdom of David."), and so are not considered as reliable.
The final two books of Kings, however, DO have very much textual and archaeological support, and are considered to be good sources of the ancient history of the Levant and parts of the Near East.
Likewise can be said of the book of Daniel, though not entirely accurate in some areas.
The Old Testament portion of the Bible consists very much of Wisdom Literature, Songs, Hymns and Poetry and Prophetic Literature. We cannot place historical values to these books as they were not written as histories, and never intended to be read as such. If anything, these books merely help us to understand the ancient culture of the Hebrews. In this sense, they might be considered "factual."
Concerning those books that I have not mentioned that do purport to histories, it is likely that they are also accepted sources for ancient Near Eastern histories, as it has been a clear trend that the further back in time you go, the less accurate the histories. Since the books I have not mentioned come later than the Pentateuch and Kings, etc.. they are hence more reliable sources, and an abundance of extra-biblical evidence (both physical and textual) support them. Keep in mind, however, that since histories are always written with bias, the stories told in these other books aer not always necessarily fully accurate, though the major events themselves are confirmed to have taken place.
The New Testament is another story altogether, and I don't believe I am yet qualified to make a proper statement concerning its historical authenticity.
The Bible, therefore, is very much a blend between fact and fiction, and actually, intentionally so. However, not as a means of controlling the masses, as some would suggest, but rather as a means of conveying spiritual concepts and ideologies. The historical "factual-ness" of the Bible actually has little impact on the heart of the religious ideals that come from it.
For the New Testament,
the chronological order of the documents is important for evaluation purposes.
The oldest document the letter of James,
which is a post Christian instructional (proverb type) piece of ethical guidance,
but appears pre-Christological in the Pauline sense.
Next come the letters of Paul, hot of the press at the formation period of the Gentile church(es). Here doctrine is fresh and still almost liquid, but the historical information is sparse.
Possiblly 1st Peter could be placed next, but like other letters, its content is mostly pastoral, not historical.
Then follows the Books of Luke/Acts (same author) which gather together the sayings and life-story of Jesus, the main founder and leader of the Christians. These two books are rich in historical content, much of which has been confirmed by modern Archaeological investigation.
Afterward, you have Matthew and Mark, John and the other letters. These are later, and more sophisticated products of the early church, in its situation of confrontation with Jewish and Roman authority, and so does reflect even more accurate historical data of interest, however, it must be recognized and interpreted in a process of literary analysis.
Now perhaps may come Revelation and possibly Hebrews, reflecting more political and historical facts, such as the war between the Romans and the Jews, and the destruction of the Temple.
Finally, the later, pseudonomic letters, like 2nd Peter, Jude, and some attributed mistakenly to Paul. Even these have interesting historical information, and reflect doctrine and political background of their times.
the chronological order of the documents is important for evaluation purposes.
The oldest document the letter of James,
which is a post Christian instructional (proverb type) piece of ethical guidance,
but appears pre-Christological in the Pauline sense.
Next come the letters of Paul, hot of the press at the formation period of the Gentile church(es). Here doctrine is fresh and still almost liquid, but the historical information is sparse.
Possiblly 1st Peter could be placed next, but like other letters, its content is mostly pastoral, not historical.
Then follows the Books of Luke/Acts (same author) which gather together the sayings and life-story of Jesus, the main founder and leader of the Christians. These two books are rich in historical content, much of which has been confirmed by modern Archaeological investigation.
Afterward, you have Matthew and Mark, John and the other letters. These are later, and more sophisticated products of the early church, in its situation of confrontation with Jewish and Roman authority, and so does reflect even more accurate historical data of interest, however, it must be recognized and interpreted in a process of literary analysis.
Now perhaps may come Revelation and possibly Hebrews, reflecting more political and historical facts, such as the war between the Romans and the Jews, and the destruction of the Temple.
Finally, the later, pseudonomic letters, like 2nd Peter, Jude, and some attributed mistakenly to Paul. Even these have interesting historical information, and reflect doctrine and political background of their times.
Curious chronology you have presented.
I have several sources that indicate a quite different sequence -
70 Mark
90 Luke
95 Matthew
100 1Peter
110 John
Mark begins the earliest of the gospel mythologies and later Mathew embelishes the story telling while copying Mark. As we move further away from the alledged early events the mythology becomes richer and any historical accuracy fades rapidly as one would expect, the opposite of what you suggest.
I have several sources that indicate a quite different sequence -
70 Mark
90 Luke
95 Matthew
100 1Peter
110 John
Mark begins the earliest of the gospel mythologies and later Mathew embelishes the story telling while copying Mark. As we move further away from the alledged early events the mythology becomes richer and any historical accuracy fades rapidly as one would expect, the opposite of what you suggest.
Xylene: you cant in all honesty be serious, the fact that the bible has included some countries, and some historical people, to give so kind of strange credence, just go's to show how deperate the original writers were, literally nothing written in the bible holds water. unless you shape the pages into a cup.
Einstuck said:
I'm most curious: what "archaeological investigations" do you refer to?